Content uploaded by Maria Giné-Garriga
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Maria Giné-Garriga on Feb 18, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Occupational Sitting Time, Job Productivity and Related Work Loss in Spanish University Employees: 2095: Board #290 June 2 9:00 AM - 10:30 AM
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While increasing evidence suggests the negative effects of physical inactivity on individual job productivity1 and the negative associations between high occupational sitting times and employee’s health2, the relationship between time spent sitting at work and job performance remains unclear. PURPOSE: Prior to the beginning of a pedometer-based program to reduce occupational sitting, this study examined associations between time spent sitting at work, job productivity and related work loss in white-collar, university employees. METHODS: Five hundred and fifty-seven participants from four Spanish universities (42±22 years old, BMI 24,07±3.7 kg/mt2, 62% women, 73% working full time, 58% academic and 42% administrative staff) completed a survey measuring time spent sitting at work3 (Domain-specific sitting questionnaire), work performance (Work Limitations Questionnaire, WLQ) 4 and an estimation of work productivity loss based on WLQ data (WLQ Index score)4. Work performance was identified using three subscales, reflecting ability to meet that day’s demands for (i) output (ii) time management and (iii) mental and interpersonal skills. Differences in these subscales and the WLQ index score were compared across sitting time tertiles using ANOVA. RESULTS: Employees that spent less time sitting while working (113±50 min/day, n=184) showed significantly better skills in performing job’s time and scheduling demands (F= 6.9, p=0,001) compared to employees that sat more (309±47 min/day, n=201; 462±69 min/day, n=172). Scores in the WLQ Index estimated that those sitting more (462±69 min/day) showed a 5.8% decrease in productivity compared to the 3.9% shown by those who sat less (113±50 min/day) although the difference was not significant (p=0.061). CONCLUSION: Preliminary data indicate that levels of sitting at work were associated with the ability to perform specific job demands in our sample. On going work will assess the impact sitting interventions have on employee work performance and job productivity loss.
... Physical activity (PA) levels were measured using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) short form [25]. A total of 704 employees completed the survey [26]. Those employees with low and moderate PA levels (0 to 3,000 METÁminÁwk -1 ) were invited to participate in the intervention by email or phone calls (n = 345, 62%). ...
Purpose:
Encouraging office workers to 'sit less and move more' encompasses two public health priorities. However, there is little evidence on the effectiveness of workplace interventions for reducing sitting, even less about the longer term effects of such interventions and still less on dual-focused interventions. This study assessed the short and mid-term impacts of a workplace web-based intervention (Walk@WorkSpain, W@WS; 2010-11) on self-reported sitting time, step counts and physical risk factors (waist circumference, BMI, blood pressure) for chronic disease.
Methods:
Employees at six Spanish university campuses (n=264; 42±10 years; 171 female) were randomly assigned by worksite and campus to an Intervention (used W@WS; n=129; 87 female) or a Comparison group (maintained normal behavior; n=135; 84 female). This phased, 19-week program aimed to decrease occupational sitting time through increased incidental movement and short walks. A linear mixed model assessed changes in outcome measures between the baseline, ramping (8 weeks), maintenance (11 weeks) and follow-up (two months) phases for Intervention versus Comparison groups.
Results:
A significant 2 (group) × 2 (program phases) interaction was found for self-reported occupational sitting (F[3]=7.97, p=0.046), daily step counts (F[3]=15.68, p=0.0013) and waist circumference (F[3]=11.67, p=0.0086). The Intervention group decreased minutes of daily occupational sitting while also increasing step counts from baseline (446±126; 8,862±2,475) through ramping (+425±120; 9,345±2,435), maintenance (+422±123; 9,638±3,131) and follow-up (+414±129; 9,786±3,205). In the Comparison group, compared to baseline (404±106), sitting time remained unchanged through ramping and maintenance, but decreased at follow-up (-388±120), while step counts diminished across all phases. The Intervention group significantly reduced waist circumference by 2.1cms from baseline to follow-up while the Comparison group reduced waist circumference by 1.3cms over the same period.
Conclusions:
W@WS is a feasible and effective evidence-based intervention that can be successfully deployed with sedentary employees to elicit sustained changes on "sitting less and moving more".
... Physical activity (PA) levels were measured using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) short form [25]. A total of 704 employees completed the survey [26]. Those employees with low and moderate PA levels (0 to 3,000 METÁminÁwk -1 ) were invited to participate in the intervention by email or phone calls (n = 345, 62%). ...
Introduction: Higher levels of daily sitting time are associated with an elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, all-cause and cardiovascu- lar disease mortality. As a typical work day represents one-half of waking hours and because people spent an average of 10 hours sit- ting a day, workplace interventions aimed at reducing sitting time are needed. Currently, evidence on the effectiveness of workplace interventions for reducing sedentary behaviour is scarce. We eval- uated the impact of a pedometer-based programme–based on Web technology–on employees’ sitting time two months after removing the intervention.
Methods: Inactive white-collar employees (n = 264; age 42 ± 10 years; 171 women) undertook a 20-week programme at four Span- ish Universities. A quasi-experimental design was used, with an additional Campus in each University acting as a control. Employees at these additional sites undertook key measures for comparative analyses (n = 135; control group; maintain normal behaviour) with the intervention group (n = 129). The intervention consisted of: a) a ramping phase (8 weeks) to progressively increase baseline step counts to 10.000 steps/workday by integrating active work- ing tasks, short (10′) and long (20′) campus walking routes at low and moderate intensities, b) a maintenance phase (12 weeks) of the increased volume of step counts, with intensive researcher guidance (weekly emails). Adherence to behaviour change was assessed two months after completing the intervention. Employees used a pedometer and a Website that provided strategies, moti- vational materials and interactive features. Employees completed baseline and intervention measures at three points (after ramping, maintenance and adherence phase) of sitting time (domain and day-specific sitting time questionnaire). T Student tests analysed significant differences between groups.
Results: Significant differences between groups (p < 0.05) were identified for a) TV sitting time at weekend with mean differences indicating a decrease of 27 and 25 minutes on the maintenance and adherence phase respectively, b) transport sitting time during work days with mean differences indicating a 10 minutes decrease on the adherence phase, (c) total sitting time during work days with mean differences indicating a 38 minutes decrease on the ramping phase. Small, non-significant changes were found for occupational sitting time.
Conclusion: Our workplace pedometer-based programme decreased employee sitting times but not at work, which was our main purpose. This data suggests that employees could not inte- grate the strategies into their working routines but integrated them outside work instead, facilitating meaningful behaviour change in some specific sitting domains.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.